Of all these issues, marijuana legalization is getting the most press. And if you examine each issue independently you will notice that most are aimed at making the state laws more progressive. Increasing minimum wage, rolling back severe mandatory prison sentences, stricter gun control, expanding voting rights, and of course -- legalizing marijuana.
Then there is abortion. And yet again, there is an attempt to control women's reproductive systems. These (mostly white male) lawmakers just can't stop peeking up their constituents' skirts. So three states -- Colorado, Tennessee, and North Dakota will attempt -- yet again -- to overturn the privacy guarantees of Roe v. Wade with three draconian ballot measures. And in Oregon there is a proposal to ban state funds for abortions unless the mother is in "grave physical danger." That sounds purposefully vague.
Huffington Post offers more details:
Colorado: Amendment 67
What It Says: The measure states that, "In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words 'person' and 'child' in the Colorado Criminal Code and the Colorado Wrongful Death Act must include unborn human beings."What Proponents Claim It's For: In August, Mason told The Washington Post: "Amendment 67 corrects the loophole in Colorado law and ensures that those criminals can be charged with killing a child in many different scenarios, whereas previous personhood amendments didn't address the criminal code."
What Opponents Say It Could Mean For Women: Those who oppose the bill say that by changing the definition of personhood in Colorado's criminal code, the amendment could effectively criminalize abortion. It could also call into question the legality of certain types of birth control, including the pill, intrauterine devices and emergency contraception.
Opponents also worry that the amendment could have even further-reaching consequences for women who miscarry or deliver a stillborn child, as well as their doctors. "The language of Amendment 67 is so broad and far-reaching that it would make pregnant women and their doctors criminally liable for any pregnancy that does not result in a live birth, regardless of the stage of pregnancy," reads the FAQ section on the website of NO67, a campaign that opposes the measure.
North Dakota: Measure 1
What It Says: The measure would add the following to Article 1 of the North Dakota state constitution: "The inalienable right to life of every human being at any stage of development must be recognized and protected."What Proponents Claim It's For: Personhood USA's website says that the measure is meant to "ensure that mother and baby are both treated as medical patients." And in February 2013, Republican state Sen. Margaret Sitte, the sponsor of the personhood initiative, told HuffPost's Laura Bassett: "We are intending that it be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, since Scalia said that the Supreme Court is waiting for states to raise a case."
What Opponents Say It Could Mean For Women: West said that the North Dakota measure, like the Colorado amendment, could lead to an abortion ban and have negative implications for the legality of certain types of birth control and IVF procedures. Other opponents of Measure 1 point to its confusing language. "Because Measure 1 is so vague and poorly-worded, it will lead to so many legal battles," Karla Rose Hanson, spokesperson for North Dakotans Against Measure 1, told Cosmopolitan in September.
"It could lead to court battles on a variety of fronts -- how it applies to end-of-life situations, how it applies to IVF, how it applies to abortion."
Tennessee: Amendment 1
What It Says: The amendment would add the following language to Tennessee's constitution: "Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother."What Proponents Claim It's For: The group Yes On 1 says that Amendment 1 would pave the way for the Tennessee legislature to "enforce common sense protections for abortion-vulnerable women or unborn children." Since a 2000 state Supreme Court ruling that a woman's constitutional right to privacy included the right to terminate a pregnancy, the Tennessee legislature has not been able to pass broad anti-abortion legislation.
What Opponents Say It Could Mean For Women: If the amendment passes, it will effectively invalidate the earlier state Supreme Court ruling, and allow Tennessee's Congress to pursue -- and pass -- more aggressive anti-abortion legislation. According to West, the amendment would allow the legislature "to appeal every measure that protects abortion rights."
So let's recap -- if Colorado's Amendment 67 passes, then a woman could be held criminally liable for the miscarriage of a wanted child. If Measure 1 succeeds in North Dakota, that could prevent people from seeking IVF as a measure to begin a pregnancy, as well as prevent physicians and family members from carrying out end-of-life advance directives for their sick and elderly patients or relatives. And a "yes" vote on Amendment 1 in Tennessee would eliminate all constitutional language protecting the right to abortion. Nice.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
